Brill with Rolls Royce C6 engine..in case your life isn't complicated enough yet

[zubzub]

http://qc.kijiji.ca/c-autos-et-vehicules-VR-caravanes-remorques-VR-1952-Brill-Canadian-Car-W0QQAdIdZ263384974#

[CrabbyMilton]

Looks like a handsome old beast but I don't think I would trust that engine as far as I can pick it up and throw it. The nice thing about a front engine bus is repowering isn't as hard as a rear engine bus. But the noise...

[luvrbus]

I had a C-8 Rolls I played with for a few year they are a smooth engine but no power or torque if I remember the C-6 was a 12 L engine with 600 or 800 ft lbs of torque around 200 hp not much for a 12L supercharged diesel engine  


good luck

[Jeremy]

Rolls Royce engines of various sizes were once the standard power plants in military vehicles here - in fact I believe even some of the earliest military Land Rovers had Rolls Royce engines, until the Army smartened up and realised they were pushing the standardization concept too far. The Ausin Champs continued to use them though, and they are a similar size to a Land Rover.

As far as I know they were durable and reliable units, but are obviously antiques in terms of technology. So they're probably ideal for an American bus.


Jeremy

[Iceni John]

I want to see a Brill with a Merlin in it.   Yeah!

John

[TomC]

Lots of work-would be a prime candidate for a 300hp Cummins ISC-then it would be reliable.  Good Luck, TomC

[Oonrahnjay]

No, thanks.  I have challenges enough.   IYKWIM....

[Le Mirage]

The title is very funny! 
I agree....

[qayqayt]

Interesting substitution for the original Hall Scott gas powered engine.  They were very gutless.  The Brill has a mid frame "pancake" engine. 

Bryan
Vancouver BC

[CrabbyMilton]

I stand corrected because I thought the BRILL was a front engine. The choices are rather limited as far as new engines. I know the CROWN fans will get mad and they were great buses but, with mid engine, there is really no way to get away from engine noise is there?

[Iceni John]

I know the CROWN fans will get mad and they were great buses but, with mid engine, there is really no way to get away from engine noise is there?

My friend's mid-engine tandem Crown with a 6-71T doesn't seem much louder than my pusher.   Besides, I like to hear what's happening as I'm driving  -  I can hear when my fan goes to full speed, when my compressor is running, and anything else important.   I don't think I would want a bus (or any vehicle for that matter) where I can't hear the expensive bits working.   Sometimes a subtle change in how something sounds can be early warning of something serious.

Anyway, isn't a Detroit just music to the ears of any busnut?

John

[CrabbyMilton]

I would agree that nothing sounds as nice as an old 2 cycle DETROIT nad I say that an a CUMMINS stock holder. I still would rather have that sound in the rear since that is the almost universally accepted design. Plus passengers most of which are not bus nuts appreciate that. School buses on the other hand were not built to pamper the kids ont he way to the indoctrination centers....I mean schools so I guess the noise and heat factor are not much of an issue so you got me on that. Mid engine types have to be a bear to service though.

[Jeremy]

My bus is mid-engineed, as many Euro buses are - rear-engineed layouts are not a 'universally accepted design' here at least.

Engine (and gearbox) access is actually extremely good - a short person could probably almost stand up next to the engine. Accessing the top of the engine via hatches in the floor isn't ideal perhaps though. Engine noise is bound to be higher for people sitting at the front of the bus if the engine is 10 feet away rather than 35 feet away - more soundproofing required I suppose.

The biggest downside to a mid-engineed layout I think is the lost baggage-bay space - all that engine access means that I only have shallow bays on one side - no pass-though bays for me. I do have an enormous bay at the back though of course.

The biggest benefit (so I am told) is that mid-engineed buses handle infinitely better than rear-engineed ones. The professional bus driver who delivered my bus to me said it was one of the best handling vehicles he'd ever driven!

Jeremy

[Iceni John]

Mid engine types have to be a bear to service though.

For routine servicing they may not be any worse than a pusher's.   For major engine work Crown had removable side panels and solebars, so a forklift could easily slide an engine out.   At least our rear engines are reasonably accessible  -  some pusher Class-A RVs have lousy engine access compared to real buses.   The worst thing about under-floor mid engines is that they get REALLY dirty!   If you want horrible engine access. look at any flat-front front-engine bus, like some of the older Brills and lots of school buses  -  doing anything with them is a major PITA.   Plus the poor driver is roasted in hot weather, and deafened all year round, and has to clamber over the doghouse every time.

I agree with Jeremy about the handling of mid-engine buses.   Having all that weight down low and between the axles gives them the lowest polar moment of inertia, which translates to sure-footed handling even on slick or icy roads.   I had many journeys in mid-engined Leyland Tigers and Leopards when we cornered almost as fast as cars, and that's in the rain!   Nothing beats one of them, especially with the semi-automatic gearbox and a driver who knows how to wring the most from the engine, blasting along some winding narrow country lane, hoping you don't meet a farm tractor coming the other way!

John